Facial Reconstruction of a Deformed Skull from the Roman Period of Juliopolis

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3242625/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Facial Reconstruction of a Deformed Skull from the Roman Period of Juliopolis

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3242625/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 02 Jan, 2024

Read the published version in Heritage Science →

You are reading this latest preprint version

The use of digital technologies in archaeological research has become considerably more widespread in recent years. While the earliest records of the use of electronic data in archaeology date from the 1950s and 1960s, the field has kept growing with the increasing interest in digital tools such as digital photography, three-dimensional imaging, GIS, virtual and artificial reality applications, CAD and facial reconstruction. Such digitization practices are used frequently for documenting, record keeping, and preserving and representing the data recovered from archaeological contexts, and are linked to other fields, such as cultural heritage studies and museology. Facial reconstruction is used to recreate the faces of individual from the past using their skeletal remains. It has been practiced for different reasons in the fields of forensics, anthropology, and archaeology. This study focuses on the facial reconstruction of a skull unearthed from Juliopolis. The reason for choosing this skull in this study is that it is the first and only known deformed skull dated to the Roman period in Anatolia. For the facial reconstruction application, authors created a 3D modelling of the skull by photogrammetry. Then, the missing parts of the skull are completed using the virtual donor library. The results are presented in different forms, as grayscale, in colour with eyes closed or open. Also, the type of deformation is demonstrated in the skull. The benefit of facial reconstruction is especially important since it is a way of preserving and presenting archaeological and anthropological data.

Facial reconstruction

Digital archaeology

Anthropology

Anatolia

Roman period

The introduction of digital technologies to archaeological research has become considerably more essential. While the earliest records of applications of electronic data on archaeological studies date from the late 1950s and early 1960s, the field has kept evolving, with increasing interest and experience in the application of digital technologies to archaeology and technical developments in digital tools (Cowgill 1967). The development of digital archaeology has affected almost all aspects of the work to varying degrees. Nowadays, tools such as digital photography, three-dimensional imaging, GIS, virtual and artificial reality applications, Computer-Aided Design (CAD) and facial reconstruction done by anthropological methodologies are used frequently in the field for documenting, record keeping, analysis, preserving and representing the data and materials recovered from archaeological contexts. Digitization practices in archaeology and also in anthropology are also closely linked to the application of technological developments in other fields, such as cultural heritage studies and museology.

Facial reconstruction, one of the digital tools used in anthropology, is used to recreate the faces of individuals from the past using information from their skeletal remains. This can include analyzing the shape of the skull and other bones to determine the size and placement of muscles and soft tissues, as well as using information about the individual’s age-at-death, sex, and ethnicity to make educated guesses about their facial features. First examples of facial reconstruction dates to the Neolithic period. These included plastered skulls decorated with materials such as shells and beads for the eyes (Stavrionos et al. 2007). While the actual reason for skull plastering, practiced in Anatolia and the Levant region, is disputable, it can be said that the Neolithic people were the first known practitioners of facial reconstruction (Verzé 2009). Throughout the time, from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance, 18th and 19th centuries and onwards, facial reconstruction has been practiced for different reasons in the fields of forensics, anthropology and archaeology. Nowadays, the practitioners use digitally developed methods and the software for facial reconstruction, which have increased efficiency and speed of the process, as Verzé discusses (Verzé 2009).

This study focuses on the facial reconstruction of a skull unearthed from the archaeological excavation site of Juliopolis. Juliopolis is an ancient city located in Nallıhan, approximately 122 km northwest of Ankara, Turkey. Situated on the border of the Ancient Bithynia and Galatia regions, Juliopolis was the frontier town of Bithynia and had importance due to being located at the intersection of the Silk Road and Pilgrim’s Road. While the ancient city is submerged under Sarıyar Dam Lake, built in the 1950s, the necropolis and remains of an Early Byzantine church dated to 5-6th AD and defense wall are located on the northern shore of the lake (Sağır et al. 2015). The salvage excavations, carried out in the necropolis since 2009 by the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations, have uncovered more than 750 tombs of various types (Büyükkarakaya et al. 2018). Archaeological finds (e.g., precious and semi-precious jewellery, coins, metal, glass, ceramic and bone artefacts) recovered from these tombs have revealed that the necropolis was used from the Hellenistic period until the Roman and Byzantine Empire periods (Arslan et al. 2012).

The skull sample is unearthed from chamber tomb 248 (Fig. 1). The chamber tomb, where the skeletal remains of 7 individuals were found, was dated to the Roman Period (3rd century AD) based on the finds of bronze coins and earrings (Arslan et al. 2012). While one is not certain, two individuals have artificial deformation marks on their skulls.

The sex and age at death estimations of the individual were made based on the morphological features of the skull due to the poor preservation of postcranial skeleton. The cranial suture closure degrees indicated that the individual was between 25 to 35 years old at death(Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994; Nikita 2017). While for the sex estimation, sex-related differences in the skull were used, which indicated a female gender(Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994; Nikita 2017).

The reason for choosing this skull in this study is that it is the first and only known deformed skull dated to the Roman period in Anatolia (Eroğlu, in press). The identification of deformation marks on the skull was made per Buikstra and Ubelaker (1994). The deformation observed in the skull reflects the circular-vertical deformation pattern described by Cocilovo et al. (2011) (Fig. 2). In this type of deformation, there is a slight or distinct flattening of the frontal bone and a transverse, curved groove that continues along the frontal and parietal bones and ends around the lambda on the occipital bone. The growth in length and width is limited. The overall shape axis may be vertical or slightly inclined backwards by the Frankfurt horizontal plane. This deformation shape results from applying more flexible elements such as bandages, tapes or cross strips combined with other non-plastic materials on the back. Nevertheless, a second bandage mark was also found on the skull. The sclerotic structure along the coronal suture, especially the rostral part of the coronal suture, can be considered a sign that this area was subjected to long-term pressure. Therefore, the sclerotic structure appears more prominently at the junction of the first and second bandages. It is understood that two bandages, one of which is normally observed in the post-bregmatic area, were applied in the pre-bregmatic area. A narrower band was used compared to the second one. Moreover, it is thought that two hard objects of approximately 5 cm in diameter were used just above the tuber frontal areas of the frontal bone. Especially the presence of a slight hump in the frontal bone's midline and an observable depression on both sides of this hump emphasises this thought. Likewise, this deformation shape resembles the Type A depicted by Molnar et al., one of the deformation types identified in the Carpathian region (Molnar et al. 2014). However, unlike this example, the second bandage on the skull is place in the pre-bregmatic area (Eroğlu, in press).

This study aims to create a facial reconstruction of a unique skull sample from an archaeological excavation site, Juliopolis. It also aims to demonstrate use of a digital application, facial reconstruction, for preserving and presenting this cultural heritage element. A 3D modelling of this skull was already displayed to the public as a part of a public archaeology event called the Faces of Juliopolis Exhibition. During the exhibition, it was observed that the skull attracted people’s interest due to its unique features. By the facial reconstruction of this skull, the authors aim to further increase the visibility and recognition of this unique material.

This study follows the step-by-step approach discussed by Abdullah et al. (2022). After the photogrammetry and 3D modelling processes, the missing parts of the skull are completed. Then, the projection and structure of the face were determined by data acquired from the skull measurements. Finally, the detailing of the face and hair was created, and the final images were generated.

The bones of the skull lay the basis of facial appearance. They form a framework to which other structures forming the face are attached, such as muscle, fat and skin tissues. Therefore, first, the 3D model of the skull was created by photogrammetry method. The skull was placed on a rotating plate and photographed from different angles using Canon EOS 1200D and Sigma DC 1750 mm lens at the IDEA Lab at Hacettepe University. A total of 113 photographs were taken, and 95 were used by Blender to reconstruct a 3D model of the skull (Fig. 3). The photogrammetry process was carried out on a computer with the following characteristics: Intel® Core™ i7-47905 3.20 GHz processor, 8 GB of RAM with x64 Windows 10 operating system. The process took 16 minutes and 02 seconds.

As a result, the system created a 3D model of the skull with texture. However, the skull was missing the mandibula and several maxillary teeth, which caused a significant problem for facial reconstruction. Therefore, it had to be completed before the process. Before recovering the missing skull parts, several measurements were taken from the skull to choose proper virtual donors for the completion process. Proper donors were chosen from the author C. Moraes’ virtual donor library (Fig. 4). A 3D mesh from an appropriate virtual donor was used to replace the missing mandibula and teeth of the individual (Fig. 5).

Assessing the possible ancestry group of the skull, measurements were taken between frontomalar points, glabella and nasion, and rhinion and the lateral edge of the orbit (Fig. 6). This skull represented a greater affinity with clusters represented in Fig. 7. However, it should be noted that this clustering is not direct evidence that the individual is from the mentioned ancestry groups. This simply suggests that the skull measurements are compatible with those from the groups.

The facial reconstruction was performed using OrtogOnBlender, an add-on in Blender software, and its submodule ForensicOnBlender. These tools, created by the author C. Moraes himself, provide additional features to Blender to carry out the digitalisation of 3D objects and to facilitate forensic facial approximation works (Moraes et al. 2022).

Following photogrammetry, the 3D model of the skull was positioned on the Frankfurt plane. Then, the soft tissue thickness markers were placed on the skull according to the sex and age-at-death of the individual. The facial measurements are essential to lay out a basis for the positioning of the eyes, nose and lips. Using standardised terms and methods to minimise measurement errors and increase reliability is important (Caple and Stephan 2016). Therefore, the measurements were taken, and the anatomical points were determined in accordance with Caple and Stephan to be consistent with the author C. Moraes’ previous study (Abdullah et al. 2022; Caple and Stephan 2016).

The measurement of the distance between frontomalar (fmo) points is crucial to determining the place and projection of facial elements (Abdullah et al. 2022). For the skull, the mean distance between fmo points of each side was measured as 95.35 mm. This mean distance is mainly used to determine the positioning of the eyeballs which is determined in accordance with the X, Y and Z axes due to the anatomical structure of eye orbits. The position on the X axis was projected from 16.5 mm from the fmo points on each side by using the mean distance between fmo points. A line was drawn on the Z axis, the mean distance of which is 15.5 mm to determine the height of the eyeballs. Concerning the position of the eyeballs in the Y axis, a mean distance was measured between a tangent to the infraorbital margin and p with a mean distance of 5.6 mm. The distance between al-al points is 37.72 mm.

Concerning the positioning of the mouth, the measurement of the distance between the cheilion (ch) points, which indicate the intersection of upper and lower vermilions in the outer corner of the mouth, is necessary (Abdullah et al. 2022; Caple and Stephan 2016). In this study, the mean distance between ch-ch was 49.76 mm. The size of the eyes was 28.39 mm and the height of the ears was 57.32 mm. To get all these distances, the authors used some commands on ForensicOnBlender, which are available on two video tutorials created by the author C. Moraes (Link 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6oYkEmfyWo and Link 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vcz2e5uSFX8).

For the projection of the nose, the authors used an approach mixing statistical data with proportional projection, based on the measurements taken from the CT scans of live people (Moraes et al. 2022). An online video tutorial of this technique is available on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F205kLQ--Oo.

After all the statistical projections were done, a reconstructed CT scan of a virtual donor was imported on scene and the composed mesh of skull and soft tissue was deformed, until the two skulls match and the soft tissue followed this deformation. With the data of statistical projection and anatomical deformation, the basic structure of the approximation was done (Fig. 8). After this step, a final form of the face was generated by the digital sculpture of facial details, the pigmentation of the skin and the configuration of the hair.

Final images of the facial reconstruction were generated using Blender 3D’s Cycles renderer. As a result, four types of output were obtained. The first one shows the reconstruction in grayscale with eyes closed and without hair (Fig. 9). The second one shows an image in colour with eyes opened (Fig. 10). A third one also demonstrates an image in colour but also with hair (Fig. 11). By focusing on the facial projection and anatomical features, the grayscale version represents a more objective approach which could be considered more scientific. On the other hand, the versions in colour represent a more subjective and artistic approach since they provide various details such as colour, hair, eyebrow and eyelashes. In addition to these versions, the authors also created a facial reconstruction of the skull demonstrating the type of deformation (Fig. 12).

This study presents the facial reconstruction of a deformed skull from the archaeological site of Juliopolis. The authors chose this skull since it has the importance of being the only known deformed skull belonging to the Roman period in Anatolia. The 3D modelling of the skull was already displayed in a public archaeology event called the Faces of Juliopolis Exhibition, where it appealed to many visitors due to its unique feature. The facial reconstruction of this deformed female skull will demonstrate the way towards how the past people of Juliopolis may have looked like. Moreover, it provides an example for how to complete missing parts of a sample, such as the lower jaw (mandibula) in this case, using appropriate digital data which may serve as an example for future studies.

The benefit of facial reconstruction, as a digital tool used in archaeological and anthropological works, is especially important since it not only makes it possible to digitize the archaeological/anthropological data, but it also provides insight into how the people from the past looked. In addition, it is a way of preserving and presenting anthropological data come from archaeological context. However, it is important to note here that facial reconstruction is a speculative process, and the results should be considered as an approximation rather than an accurate representation of the subject. Yet, the reconstructions appeal to the audience and may somehow encourage them to seek more information and learn about the presented subject.

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

Not applicable.

Consent for Publication

All authors have granted their consent for the publication of this paper.

Availability of Data and Materials

All data generated and analysed in this study are included in the article.

Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing financial or personal interests that could have appeared to influence this paper.

Funding

This study did not receive any funding from the public or commercial agencies.

Authors’ Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Evren Sertalp and Cicero Moraes. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Evren Sertalp, Cicero Moraes and Erge Bütün and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgement

This study is prepared as a part of the Juliopolis Project, which is carried out in partnership with the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations, Koç University Vehbi Koç Ankara Studies Research Center (KU VEKAM) and Hacettepe University. We are very grateful to all these institutions for their support.

Abdullah JY, Moraes C, Saidin M, Rajion ZA, Hadi H, Shahidan S, Abdullah JM (2022) Forensic approximation of 5000-year-old female skull from Shell Midden in Guar Kepah, Malaysia. Appl Sci. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12157871
Arslan M, Metin M, Cinemre MO, Çelik T, Türkmen M (2012) Juliopolis nekropolü 2010 yılı kazı çalışmaları. In: Özme A (ed) 20. Müze çalışmaları ve kurtarma çalışmaları sempozyumu, Ankara, pp 169-188
Buikstra JE, Ubelaker DH (1994) Standards for data collection from human skeletal remains. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetville
Büyükkarakaya AM, Alpagut A, Çubukçu E, Cavalli Fabio (2018) Juliopolis (Iuliopolis) antropolojik araştırmaları: ilk çalışmalar. Ankara Araştırmaları Dergisi 6:111-126. https://doi.org/10.5505/jas.2018.43433
Caple JS, Carl N (2016) A standardized nomenclature for craniofacial and facial anthropometry. International Journal of Legal Medicine 130:863-879. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-015-1292-1
Cocilovo JA, Varela HH, O’Brien TG (2011) Effects of artificial deformation on cranial morphogenesis in the South Central Andes. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 21:300-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/oa.1141
Cowgill GL (1967) Computer applications in archaeology. Computer and the Humanities 2:17-23
Molnar M, Janos I, Szucz L, Szathmary L (2014) Artificially deformed crania from the Hun-Germanic period (5^th-6^th century AD) in Northeastern Hungary: historical and morphological analysis. Neurosurgical Focus 36:1-9. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.1.focus13466
Moraes C, Sindelar J, Drbal K (2022) The forensic facial approximation of Mladec skull 1. OrtogOnLineMag
Moraes C, Bezzi L, Carrara N (2022) The 3D digital facial approximation of Saint Anthony of Padua. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 28:1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2022.e00255
Nikita E (2017) Osteoarchaeology: a guide to the macroscopic study of human skeletal remains. Academic Press.
Sağır E, Metin M, Cinemre O (2015) Juliopolis nekropolü 2012 yılı kazısı. In: Özme A (ed) 23. Müze çalışmaları ve kurtarma kazıları sempozyumu, Ankara, pp 151-170
Eroğlu S (in press) Anadolu’da Roma dönemine ait bir deformasyon örneği: Juliopolis. In: Büyükkarakaya AM (ed) Juliopolis Band I, Koç Üniversitesi Yayınları, Ankara
Stavrianos C, Stavrianou I, Zouloumis L, Mastagas D (2007) An introduction to facial reconstruction. Balkan Journal of Stomatology 11:76-83
Verzé L (2009) History of facial reconstruction. Acta Biomed 80:5-12

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 02 Jan, 2024

Read the published version in Heritage Science →

Editorial decision: Major revision
12 Aug, 2023
Submission checks completed at journal
09 Aug, 2023
Editor assigned by journal
09 Aug, 2023
First submitted to journal
07 Aug, 2023

You are reading this latest preprint version

Facial Reconstruction of a Deformed Skull from the Roman Period of Juliopolis

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. Introduction

2. Material and Method

3. Results

4. Conclusion

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1